Well, I'm no economist, but it seems like if you shrink a nations workforce and consumer base by 30% it would cause a massive deflationary effect on the economy. It would have the same effect as the Federal Reserve taking a huge amount of money out of the economy(i.e., starts buying back T-bills and stops issuing new ones), only worse, because you lose labor too. It seems like in order to expand, an economy must have an expanding workforce, not a shrinking one. Several European countries and Japan are experiencing problems because of this, a loss in labor force due to low child growth. Although I'll admit thats not exactly the same situation because you have an aging population, et al.

I agree that there are some downsides along these lines, but they aren't the downsides they're made out to be.

For example, sure, the Japanese have a problem finding cheap, unskilled labor, what with their overriding goal of staying Japanese and all. Unlike you, they don't pretend the questions are one-sided. They ask themselves, "hmm, do we want to stop being Japanese so we can have cheap laborers. Hmmm. Nope, I think we'll stay Japanese, thanks."

It's not for nothing that the Japanese are world-leaders in robotics and automation. Abstaining from the cheap labor drug has paid off in terms of technological innovation for the Japanese. They can't import unskilled aliens and pay them slave wages, so instead they pick up the slack by being smarter.

Their way's better.

As far as "expanding economies" go, I think they're a red herring. Expansion != good. I also disagree with the idea that economics is everything. Capitalism is not a system that is dominant in a healthy nation, rather it should be subsumed under other goals.

If it was, then selling one's children would be a good thing, as would whoring out one's wife, taking on contract murder as a side gig, etc. Hell, slavery's a great idea if one is a pure capitalist.

Capitalism does and should have its limits. I feel the same way about immigration and "expansion uber alles." What the hell is the point of making more money when you've sold your soul? What is the good of increasing your national productivity or growth if you're no longer a nation?

The Bush administration is currently bragging about all the new jobs that are being created. What they aren't telling anyone is that the vast majority of these new jobs are going to illegal aliens (see www.vdare.com).

Yippee. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Sure, it all looks good on the books, but really what is the point of mass-importing low-skilled cultural aliens and then bragging about all the new jobs you're giving them?

Sure, there would be some growing pains, but these all fall under short-term issues, and they all fall outside the scope of this thread. The question was, ceteris paribus, what would suck about a white nation.

I haven't seen an answer yet.

Quote:

Well it seems like if we attempted to force repatriation of our nationals to other countries, they woudn't be exactly pleased. China, especially, since they are really tight about population control nowadays and woudn' t seem to happy with an influx of people who have been polluted with "Western" ideals.

The question was, ceteris paribus, what would suck about a white nation.

I haven't seen an answer yet.

Quote:

Most of the middle eastern nations would probably attempt some form of economic retaliation.

Lol, something tells me that only one country in the ME would get along less than famously with a ceteris paribus white nation.

Somehow I don't see as well thought out the idea that Arabs would get along worse with a white nation without a massively powerful jewish diaspora than they do with ones with.

Quote:

On the other hand, some such as Japanese might actually welcome it.

Maybe. Something tells me they'll be just fine either way.

Quote:

I'm sure some others on this board envision something else besides repatriation, such as simply giving non-whites a portion of the U.S. land

I envision a varied and nuanced approach, with multiple solutions for multiple problems. Blacks have a different status than first generation Pakistanis, for example.

Quote:

Well, some consider Hispanics, Spanish, Italians and Turks to be "non-white" if they have even a hint of pigmentation in their skin, or dark eyes and dark hair, have certain facial features, etc.

That isn't an issue (vis-a-vis Spaniards, Italians or other southern Euros that is). The question of whiteness is best answered with "the descendants of European Christendom."

Quote:

Several posters on this board have reiterated that Jews are not white, but what about their descendants?

Jews in general are genetically distinct from Europeans, but the important distinction isn't genetic, it's tribal; jewish tribal identification includes hostility to white racial awareness and white ethnic genetic interests. There are of course very rare exceptions. That's why I refer to them as "non-white" in some contexts. Imagine if the French declared that their goal, to a man, was to destroy the non-French European-derived peoples of the world; wouldn't it make sense to refer to them as "non-white," at least in the political sense?

Quote:

For example, my third great-grandfather was Jewish but stopped practing when he married an Irish catholic. I know that Jews would not consider me Jewish unless I reconverted somehow, but what about WNs?

The best policy here is to choose tribal identification and then take the most appropriate action. For example, if you wanted to become a WN, the best policy here would be "don't ask, don't tell." If you' really are white and your jewish ancestry is limited to a single great-grandfather, trust me the only way WNs would know is if you told them (not a good idea, lots of idiots and this is their pet issue).

edit: I should add that for my part, I couldn't give less of a damn about your jewish great-grandfather (hand to God, it means nothing to me).

Quote:

How many generations have to pass before someone is considered "white" again if there has been misgenation?

That's a good question. Me, I'm not real picky. I think there are bigger fish to fry than chasing down non-white branches in family trees. A couple of reasonable measures would suffice for me (spot-checks work for me personally), including resolution panels (for problem cases, e.g. someone who everyone thinks is non-white but claims to be white), genetic tests using whatever percentage threshold is deemed appropriate by experts, etc.

Ask yourself, how much trouble does the U.S. government have in enforcing its own racial spoils system? It doesn't exactly make the papers every day, does it? Still, the government manages to sort people by race and decide who gets extra special treatment and who is chopped liver, doesn't it?

Quote:

Would you require that everyone investigate their genealogy to prove their "whiteness"?

Nah. Genetic testing for this sort of thing will soon be about as expensive as a pregnancy test, and far more reliable than genealogical data.

It was really nice responding to you Ogie. I just realized you haven't taken any cheap shots or made any threats. Thanks.

Oh, a piece of advice; use your imagination more (when thinking through questions and problems through a WN lens). I know it's hard, but try and remember that WNs are people too. Nutjobs aside, we aren't interested in hurting people or using force when it isn't necessary; we're white, remember? The same race as the people who invented the very idea of human rights, individual rights, rule of law, limited government, etc.

Yeah, family values don't stop at the Rio Grande, Mexicans are just seeking a better life, bla bla bla.

The only country where we have a worse reputation is Finland.

Kind of a funny way for the little brown buggers to pay us back for absorbing 20 million of their bandy-legged invaders and playing host to their single greatest source of foreign "trade" (remittances).

Quote:

Japan is the country most widely viewed as having a positive influence, and Europe as a whole gets the most positive ratings of all.

We can now officially chuck the whole idea of needing to import foreigners to make them like you right out the window.

Imagine that within the current borders of America a WN state is created. Apply "Ceteris Paribus" across the board; in other words, this WN state is exactly like "old" America except it's for whites only.

The rest I'll leave to your imagination. How many white Americans would move there, over time?

I think it would be quicker to count how many wouldn't move there, or maybe to calculate the carrying capacity of its area because it would fill up quickly.

Whites would move there in the millions. Maybe 10-20% of the white population, tops, would refuse to move based on moral qualms. I think that's a high estimate.

Of course, your soccer-mom types would be the first ones to fill up their minivans and burn rubber.

... (ceteris paribus) the vast majority of white people would flock there in droves, pack it full to the gills. They'd all be singing kumbaya and "we're all equal" the whole way there, friend. They'd be thinking the exact same sorts of things they think while engaging in white flight:

"well, I'm not a racist, but there's the whole crime issue to think about, and I want a safe place to raise my kids";

"well, I'm not a racist, but I'd like to be able to do business in English, to bring my kids up in a school where English is the undisputed language, where they can learn about their own ancestors instead of the ancestors of alien peoples, where they don't have to hear how evil Europeans are";

"well, I'm not a racist, but I'd like my children to be able to get a scholarship, where they don't have to worry about being held down so a less qualified person can be lifted up just to fill a quota";

"well, I'm not a racist, but it'd be nice to have freedom of association back";

"well, I'm not a racist, but it'd be nice to not have to worry about offending people by simply speaking the truth";

"well, I'm not a racist, but it'd be nice to not have to hear "Allahuakbar" blaring out from those loudspeakers";

"well, I'm not a racist, but it'd be nice to live where we can celebrate Christmas, and Easter, and every other Christian holiday in public without worrying about offending some New York Jew";

"well, I'm not a racist, but it'd be nice to just GIVE UP the whole racial spoils game, the whole 'I love diversity, even the kind that eats dogs, kamikazis skyscrapers, rapes kids to cure AIDS, insults my kids for doing their homework, stones women for having sex, etc.,";

"well, I'm not a racist, but it'd be nice to live where my insurance premiums aren't jacked up to cover the costs of uninsured mestizo drunk drivers, potential discrimination lawsuits, etc.,";

"well, I'm not a racist, but it'd be nice to live where I can keep the money that now comes out of my check to go to pay for black and mestizo failure and black single mothers";

"well, I'm not a racist, but it'd be nice to live in a society where black malfeasance isn't the unspoken excuse for gun-grabbers everywhere, where the mean IQ is high enough and the mean testosterone level is low enough that young bucks won't be wacking one another at epidemic levels."

Is it something in the water? It's like every single anti here starts with the unwritten admission "yep, you're 100% right Svy, I got NOTHIN'. I have NO objections to a WN state as such, just objections to how one might be created. I just don't want to be honest and admit as much."

Hm. I haven't been able to find a post where I said that. Please, post a link!

Sigh. You don't have to say it. Every failure to address the topic of the thread screams it.

It's like when you ask someone if he killed his wife and he starts telling you about his recipe for Chicken Kiev.

I never got into the topic whether it was right or wrong. I simply let you know that we braught them here, and they live here now.

Aside from issues of right or wrong (your criterion, not mine), so what? If we're not considering right and wrong then it doesn't matter if little green men from Mars brought them here, we can send them back regardless.

Obviously I'm not buying your "I never got into the topic whether it was right or wrong" bit.

If you have done a detailed study of affirmative actions across your nation and the world, you will realise that it aims to to create a fair representation of population in college with respective to the population in the country. This is against meritocracy and is indeed debatatble. However, to insist that the policy is anti-white in nature is no way new the truth. Without affirmative action, There will be an overwhelming number of Asian students in top colleges of western nations as there are already many of them even the affirmative action is working against them.

Having a "fair representation' of population means that more deserving whites lose their rightful places in jobs and in college admissions. This is indeed discriminatory against Whites. as the less qualified advance at our expense.
It is also unfair to non-white professionals who will be doubted , even if they do not need affirmative action.
Is it fair to the general population to have lower quality medical professionals and law enforcement personnel who are there only because they are not white? Is this safe?
If Asians achieve at a higher level then whites on average, I have no problem with them being represented by a disproportionately high percentage of their population in top jois or universities because it is not based on race, but on their achievement.

You asserts that the down grading of curriculum is because coloured students cannot cope with it. This is nonsensical and its the first time that I have heard of such things. Basically education system varies from country to country. In my personal opinion, the contemporay America education is very shallow compared to the rigorous GCE Ordinary level and Advanced level courses in UK and other commonwealth countries. Even Gorge Bush is urging to have a more demanding education which can make American students more literate and numerate. Again, education is problematic but it has nothing to do with your claim.

If it is the first time you have heard of such a thing, you have obviously limited the people you spoken to, and the media outlets you have chosen to expose yourself to.
Visit some of our schools and see how "nonsensical" this view is.
If we are more shallow then the UK, we have no choice since we have to spend so much time catering to non-English speakers whose cultures do not prioritize education.
Of course George Bush is urging a more demanding education. Is he publicly going to say we must dumb down our cirriculum to cater to "unprepared" populations?

Violence and racial tension exists. But I want to challege the word "increased". Multiculturalism, despite its criticism from Wns, have reduced it compared to the situation in the 60s.

paynothing?

In the 60's, you did not have Blacks fighting Mestizos in our schools, many of who belong to gangs. How many whites belong to gangs?
In a WN nation, racial tension would be non-existent.
Yes, if you are an illegal alien, you pay nothing for health services. Some pay nominal amounts for lifes necessities, but I imagine you are sensical enough not to take "Paynothing" literally.

Crowded streets resulting from the great influx of immigrants?? Next what makes you think that North American and Western Europe countries have a relaxed immigration policy NOW?

You are amusing me.

Your amusement defines your ignorance. What populations do you think have allowed the US total population to skyrocket to 300 million? It is the rampant mumber of immigrants from Latin America and Asia, coupled with their exhorbant birth rates. This began with The "immigration reform act of 1965"
If this was supposed to be so wonderful, why did Ted Kennedy lie to us by saying this act would not change the racial demogphics of America.

At least this makes a little sense as it is beginning to sound like a economic or social problem, unlike those non-existing imagination above like overcrowding of streets and spread of disease. This will be a problem in enforcing strict border control, but not racial separatism. Secondly, racial separatism will not solve the root problem of middle class wage erosion. American have been setting up macnufacturing industries in China and IT companies in India for the very same reason.

Do some research of the Third world diseases being brought here. You are an anti in total denial. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a journalist or politician. Check out www.frostywooldridge.com
We are importing cheap labor as well as exporting it, through illegal immigration. A problem we would not have in a WN nation.

Your expression is faulty. You define overall increase in crime rates among non-whites to be a problem of the present society. So, without whites, their crime rate will decrease? Lol. I think You are trying to say non-white being mroe criminal. What non-white again? East Asian? Mexican? Black? Why should you label non-white as whole again and again when nearly all Wns claim that there is great difference among races? sounds contradicting.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Secondly, Wns pointed out that blacks commit more crimes on ave, than white. Why should law abiding black be excluded instead of criminal white? You apply statistical discrimination on black when a majority of them do not commit crime. You are using meritocracy to justify racial segrgation policy, which obviously are contradicting.

The reasons for WN go well beyond crime statistics. Even if there was not one Black criminal in the world, Whites still deserve the right to survive. Every other race is given this right. Each race has their unique genetics and culture which should be preserved. It is those with attitudes such as yours that are ultimately responsible for our eventual demise as a people and culture.